PDA

View Full Version : Politics and stuff



yandere
10-03-2012, 05:35 PM
Please tell me I'm not the only one excited for tonights debates? So What are your views on the hot topics and politics?

such as
war
Education
The war on pot
Tabbacco use ( If it should be banned on so forth.)
Pro-life / Pro-Choice
Gay Marriage
Gun Control
.... and so on. These are just off the top of my head so feel free to add more!

I'm just wondering you can debate but keep it civil!

(also.. is this the right place to put this?? orr?? if not feel free to move it. )

oneandonly
10-03-2012, 11:16 PM
I was a bit disappointed with the presidential debate to be honest. Jim Lehrer did almost nothing to keep them in their time frame. Other than the ah..........uh...........uh...... etc. He should've been more aggressive like "Governor Romney, your time is up, Governor you time is up, you're over 30 seconds now, your time is up" the entire time while he (or Obama) was talking. I'll leave it at that. I could say more, but I don't want to get into a heated argument around here. >.>

Prawst
10-04-2012, 01:42 AM
Yo, let's stay on topic

war

It's a drain on the economy, especially when it's overburdened by record debt and deficits. Not to mention the dangerous disdain it stokes in foreign lands for what is regarded there as imperial conquest.

Education

Needs reform. Plenty of money flowing into it, though the actual efficiency of the system has stagnated if not gotten worse.

The war on pot

War on drugs is a farce. Understand it from a geopolitics perspective but ultimately it creates crime and an economy for gangs which destroys inner cities and the communities within.

Tabbacco use ( If it should be banned on so forth.)

Nope. Though I don't personally mind or care about the campaign to make aware of it's health effects.

Pro-life / Pro-Choice

Pro choice

Gay Marriage

FIESTA

Gun Control

no thx
guns aren't the root of the crime. If someone wanted to harm someone and couldn't get a gun, they'll instead grab a knife. Besides, like all form of prohibition, it just creates an illegal market that funnels wealth into criminal elements.

RX-149Dragonite
10-04-2012, 01:53 AM
Gun Control

no thx
guns aren't the root of the crime. If someone wanted to harm someone and couldn't get a gun, they'll instead grab a knife. Besides, like all form of prohibition, it just creates an illegal market that funnels wealth into criminal elements.

A liberal who doesn't believe in overbearing gun control. I'd thought I'd never see the day...

Also, I do agree with you on the military. Focus on a smaller, more efficient, military mainly focused on homeland defense, rather than manhunts for individuals who won't affect the world stage much if they are killed.

Prawst
10-04-2012, 02:03 AM
A liberal who doesn't believe in overbearing gun control. I'd thought I'd never see the day...

Also, I do agree with you on the military. Focus on a smaller, more efficient, military mainly focused on homeland defense, rather than manhunts for individuals who won't affect the world stage much if they are killed.

hahaha lol I GET THAT ALOT
I like to consider arguments on both sides of the matter. Nations like Switzerland, while having fantastic functioning social welfare nets, have very loose gun ownership laws and they don't have any problems. The media has a tendency to sensationalize violent gun stories committed by psychopaths rather that say, events where a robbery was stopped by a dude who happened to have a gun on him.

I like the whole "Speak softy, but carry a big stick" approach to military. There are many uses for a strong military, especially with regards to reacting to national emergencies like devastating national disasters.

RX-149Dragonite
10-04-2012, 02:08 AM
The media has a tendency to sensationalize violent gun stories committed by psychopaths rather that say, events where a robbery was stopped by a dude who happened to have a gun on him.

THIS SO MUCH

Did you notice after the Aurora, CO theater shooting the number of generic gun-related news stories that popped up in mainstream news? The media loves to open the floodgates whenever something big happens, even if subsequent events aren't as bad as the original news sensation. Plus, people get shot all the time across the country, but nobody cares unless it's a sensational story.

Ibuuyk
10-04-2012, 09:23 AM
Politic-wise, I'm against democracy.

The People isn't apt to elect its leaders, they don't know how a country works and votes are too easily bought with pretty promises, bribes, looks and body language.

I'm all for platonism.

Judicant
10-04-2012, 10:33 AM
War

Why do we have it? What is it accomplishing? What were our objectives going in? What are our objectives now? Why should we continue it?

To my knowledge, none of the answers to these questions are reasonable to me, so... I think we should probably stop.

Education

Public education is clearly just not working as it should. I would argue it's better than nothing, but so is a book to the face. Honestly, we're too scared to fail people it seems, and students know that. Teachers apply curves, bend deadlines, and teach to tests rather than focus on actual education. Grades are determined not by how much you've learned, but more on how well you follow directions, or on how well you craft excuses.

There's also the steady removal of everything that isn't a rhetoric, math, or science course. I'm not saying base out education on the cultural side of things, just don't strip it out entirely, it's good for kids to experience more than just academia. Hell, if you need to extend the schoolday a bit, fucking do it.

The War on Pot

Honestly, I don't agree with any kind of drug misuse. Smoking, pot, alcohol, etc. Hell, I'll drink, but I don't really hold any interest in getting "drunk". That said, I know people will do this shit no matter what we do, and honestly pot is not the worst thing out there (you won't get me to touch it, but eyh).

I've heard and been engaged in a lot of dumb discussions on pot, and been subjected to the topic when my job involved being the gatekeeper of cigarettes, and honestly my opinion is this: apply the same laws regarding pot and driving that is used for alcohol, apply any smoking laws to also apply to smoking pot, tax the shit out of it, and implement some health/quality standards for it. Also, on a non-gov't level, people who smoke pot, don't be annoying about it.

Tobacco Use

If people want to slowly kill themselves and waste their money, they're free to it on this front. Just keep smoking away from people who don't.

Pro-Life/Pro-Choice

There are too many factors in the circumstances of pregnancy to take the stubborn-as-hell view of "It's alive, don't kill it". So long as it's not too far along in pregnancy, it's the woman's right to choose. It's her life, her future, her body. I'd rather a child not be brought into this world that would be either unwanted or into a family that couldn't support it.

If you think the right to chose something like that is wrong, that's your business. Don't subject everyone else to your near arbitrary moral standards.

Gay Marriage

First step, let's stop calling it marriage for the time being. I know, I know... 'we deserve equal rights blah blah blah', we'll get there eventually nerds. Start of by calling it a Civil Union or whatnot, which significantly more people are in favor of than 'Gay Marriage' and get some rights, and then fight to get the rest of them.

Honestly, I don't care if I can get 'married', I just want the same rights as marriage. I don't want to force churches to conduct actions they don't agree with, forced by the law to do so, but hell if they want to they're certainly free to do so.

Gun Control

The people who abuse gun use, the people gun control mostly targets, are not obtain guns legally anyway, so what's the point? If someone buys a gun for a non-illegal purpose, and slips up, hold them accountable.

That said, there are many people who shouldn't own guns because they don't know how to use them (me). If people are going to buy guns, let's institute some sort of way to encourage them to go learn how to use it. Regularly.

Though, I'm fine with banning the sale/acquisition of certain types of firearms without some sort of permit. Pistol for protection? Reasonable. A combat sniper? Maybe not... Fit hunting wherever you like in there I guess.

RX-149Dragonite
10-04-2012, 11:02 AM
Politic-wise, I'm against democracy.


Good thing we have a republic, and not a democracy.


War

Why do we have it? What is it accomplishing? What were our objectives going in? What are our objectives now? Why should we continue it?

The typical response is to protect the country, but to go into more detail, it's really to protect the country's interests abroad, which honestly is what you're supposed to do as a country. However, the US has gone about protecting its interests abroad all wrong, for the most part.



To my knowledge, none of the answers to these questions are reasonable to me, so... I think we should probably stop.

In an ideal world, yeah that would be nice.


Education

Public education is clearly just not working as it should. I would argue it's better than nothing, but so is a book to the face. Honestly, we're too scared to fail people it seems, and students know that. Teachers apply curves, bend deadlines, and teach to tests rather than focus on actual education. Grades are determined not by how much you've learned, but more on how well you follow directions, or on how well you craft excuses.


There's also the steady removal of everything that isn't a rhetoric, math, or science course. I'm not saying base out education on the cultural side of things, just don't strip it out entirely, it's good for kids to experience more than just academia. Hell, if you need to extend the schoolday a bit, fucking do it.

Both of these thoughts make me think that high school needs to be less general education minded and more preparatory minded, either preparing for jobs and/or college. Also, really, what's killing public education is the chokehold teacher unions have on schools.


The War on Pot

Honestly, I don't agree with any kind of drug misuse. Smoking, pot, alcohol, etc. Hell, I'll drink, but I don't really hold any interest in getting "drunk". That said, I know people will do this shit no matter what we do, and honestly pot is not the worst thing out there (you won't get me to touch it, but eyh).

I've heard and been engaged in a lot of dumb discussions on pot, and been subjected to the topic when my job involved being the gatekeeper of cigarettes, and honestly my opinion is this: apply the same laws regarding pot and driving that is used for alcohol, apply any smoking laws to also apply to smoking pot, tax the shit out of it, and implement some health/quality standards for it. Also, on a non-gov't level, people who smoke pot, don't be annoying about it.

Agreed.


Pro-Life/Pro-Choice

There are too many factors in the circumstances of pregnancy to take the stubborn-as-hell view of "It's alive, don't kill it". So long as it's not too far along in pregnancy, it's the woman's right to choose. It's her life, her future, her body. I'd rather a child not be brought into this world that would be either unwanted or into a family that couldn't support it.

If you think the right to chose something like that is wrong, that's your business. Don't subject everyone else to your near arbitrary moral standards.

I can tell you're quite the libertarian, and that's nice.


Gay Marriage

First step, let's stop calling it marriage for the time being. I know, I know... 'we deserve equal rights blah blah blah', we'll get there eventually nerds. Start of by calling it a Civil Union or whatnot, which significantly more people are in favor of than 'Gay Marriage' and get some rights, and then fight to get the rest of them. Honestly, I don't care if I can get 'married', I just want the same rights as marriage. I don't want to force churches to conduct actions they don't agree with, forced by the law to do so, but hell if they want to they're certainly free to do so.


I think the problem lies less in the definition of "marriage" and how homosexuality fits in that and more in the fact that most states don't extend the same rights that regular married couples have to homosexual couples, which really isn't fair. But, such things are a state topic and should remain a state topic, and not an issue the federal government needs to fiddle around with.



Gun Control

The people who abuse gun use, the people gun control mostly targets, are not obtain guns legally anyway, so what's the point? If someone buys a gun for a non-illegal purpose, and slips up, hold them accountable.

Yep. Gun control only works until it doesn't work, which is often. The Aurora, CO theater shooting? The guy had no prior criminal record and passed the state's background checks when he decided he wanted to purchase a gun. Gun control will never 100% even if you decide to ban the sale of firearms all together. People will find a way to get the weapon they want. And think of it this way, at least you can walk through a city street without fearing of tripping over an AK-47 every step, so be happy with the gun control we have now, it could be much much worse.



That said, there are many people who shouldn't own guns because they don't know how to use them (me). If people are going to buy guns, let's institute some sort of way to encourage them to go learn how to use it. Regularly.

This, this and this. Not to mention that most people who cry out against guns don't know a single thing about them, e.g. calling magazines "clips", thinking an average hunting rifle fires baby-seeking missiles, etc. Seriously, stuff like the Brady Campaign is so misinformed it's funny.



Though, I'm fine with banning the sale/acquisition of certain types of firearms without some sort of permit. Pistol for protection? Reasonable. A combat sniper? Maybe not... Fit hunting wherever you like in there I guess.

What if I want to shoot at soup cans from miles away?

Thestory
10-07-2012, 01:57 AM
War



The military kind of pisses me off. For a few reasons. Not to belittle those who go into it for good purposes, but there is a lot wrong with the ideas behind it. I'll only post one here.

Well...back before the world wars we were isolationists and didn't want anything to do with anyone else. For a while we wanted to keep to ourselves especially after the devastation of the first world war. Then the depression hit....then pearl harbor...then we got involved in the end of the war. When this happened we put our people to work to help support the military. This gave people back jobs and put money in their pockets. Not to mention other countries ended up owing us money by the end of it.
We then realized war could make profit. We have made it a business almost. HOWEVER it no longer works in our society and the modern economic system. So now it is a giant burden that sucks up all our cash.

This is a really messy compressed version of one of the reasons I believe we are so war happy in the US.

Castazel
10-08-2012, 06:17 PM
Yo, let's stay on topic

war

It's a drain on the economy, especially when it's overburdened by record debt and deficits. Not to mention the dangerous disdain it stokes in foreign lands for what is regarded there as imperial conquest.

Education

Needs reform. Plenty of money flowing into it, though the actual efficiency of the system has stagnated if not gotten worse.

The war on pot

War on drugs is a farce. Understand it from a geopolitics perspective but ultimately it creates crime and an economy for gangs which destroys inner cities and the communities within.

Tabbacco use ( If it should be banned on so forth.)

Nope. Though I don't personally mind or care about the campaign to make aware of it's health effects.

Pro-life / Pro-Choice

Pro choice

Gay Marriage

FIESTA

Gun Control

no thx
guns aren't the root of the crime. If someone wanted to harm someone and couldn't get a gun, they'll instead grab a knife. Besides, like all form of prohibition, it just creates an illegal market that funnels wealth into criminal elements.

<3 dis

Term
10-08-2012, 09:56 PM
Gun Control

The people who abuse gun use, the people gun control mostly targets, are not obtain guns legally anyway, so what's the point? If someone buys a gun for a non-illegal purpose, and slips up, hold them accountable.

That said, there are many people who shouldn't own guns because they don't know how to use them (me). If people are going to buy guns, let's institute some sort of way to encourage them to go learn how to use it. Regularly.

Though, I'm fine with banning the sale/acquisition of certain types of firearms without some sort of permit. Pistol for protection? Reasonable. A combat sniper? Maybe not... Fit hunting wherever you like in there I guess.

Because doing nothing makes the problem worse.

Gun control as a policy doesn't mean "let's get rid of all guns." What it means is that we restrict that kinds of weapons and certain things you can do with said weapons. For instance, I don't believe that anyone should be allowed to own an automatic weapon. There's frankly no need for it and "because criminals get them" isn't an excuse as to why your average Joe Schmoe should have access to it. Most people who are for gun control are arguing issues like these.

Likewise there's certain aspects of gun control which may be viewed as possibly racist or stereotyping. In New York City, the debate recently has been over Stop & Frisk which minority leaders complain unfairly targets the black community to be accosted by uniformed police officers. The problem of course is that nearly every other day there's another drive-by shooting or instance where someone pulls a gun in a heated situation and fires wildly, killing innocent bystanders. I can't even begin to tell you how many kids in the city have died just this past summer because of some jackass figured killing somebody was a reasonable solution to an argument and fires wildly into a crowd of people or at a playground or in front of someone's residence. State Police in New Jersey claim that after they started cracking down on profiling cars with plates from down south, where most of these guns are brought in from, crimes involving guns have gone up and no one is threatened by driving merchandise through state lines because of how PC we have to play.

There are some serious issues as well with background checks for guns. Gun shows of course are notorious for allowing people to simply buy weapons on the spot with little to no questions asked. A proper gun control reform I'd implement would be to make it illegal to sell weapons at gun shows. You could reserve or certainly make plans to buy one, but leaving a grace period open for a background check should be absolutely necessary and stiffer penalties should be levied against those who don't follow up on these regulations, up to and including loss of gun license, ability to sell weapons, and significant jail time.

Likewise there's issues with the bureaucratic system which allowed certain tragedies like Virgina Tech to happen, where the individual in question did have mental issues but as I recall they weren't recorded by people who evaluated him or they weren't made readily available during the background check process. There's reform that needs to be made across the board where guns are concerned. And certainly the mentality of "it doesn't matter" is simply going to make the issue worse due to inaction and being complacent with innocent people being senseless killed.

RX-149Dragonite
10-09-2012, 12:52 AM
Gun shows of course are notorious for allowing people to simply buy weapons on the spot with little to no questions asked.

I don't think you've been to the same gun shows I've been to. Also, you realize, that most gun control laws are dealt by the states, so you can't just slap a law across every state everywhere.

Plus, wouldn't your law make one-on-one private sales, say between neighbors, illegal?

Term
10-09-2012, 10:56 AM
I don't think you've been to the same gun shows I've been to. Also, you realize, that most gun control laws are dealt by the states, so you can't just slap a law across every state everywhere.

Which is why I would take some of the power away from the states and institute a federal mandate, making it a felony to sell firearms without performing proper background checks or making sure all precautions are met before the sale of a firearm, including in private market. Certainly there could be means for which a state could further make restrictions in their own way, but the federal government should step in in some regard dealing with gun market.


Plus, wouldn't your law make one-on-one private sales, say between neighbors, illegal?

Absolutely. Frankly I don't want weapons which are made specifically for the purpose of killing to be bought and sold as if they were just another item at someone's yard sale. According to a probe conducted by New York City officials, 62% of private gun sales are conducted without background checks (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/investigation-finds-62-private-gun-sellers-perform-background/story?id=15154436#.UHQ4vRg5jJw). Considering 40% of gun sales happen in the private market, that's a significant number of undocumented weapons changing hands, especially thanks to online sites, which can be regulated if the federal government stepped in with further regulations and penalties for illegally reselling weapons.

Considering those high numbers, I'd rather those weapons first go through a licensed reseller as opposed to a private party selling it to someone who doesn't want to be bothered by background checks for "just this one little gun I have."

RX-149Dragonite
10-09-2012, 11:10 AM
Which is why I would take some of the power away from the states and institute a federal mandate, making it a felony to sell firearms without performing proper background checks or making sure all precautions are met before the sale of a firearm. Certainly there could be means for which a state could further make restrictions in their own way, but the federal government should step in in some regard dealing with gun market.

And then you step into the problem of the federal government telling the states what to do, taking away states' rights



Absolutely. Frankly I don't want weapons which are made specifically for the purpose of killing to be bought and sold as if they were just another item at someone's yard sale. According to a probe conducted by New York City officials, 62% of private gun sales are conducted without background checks (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/investigation-finds-62-private-gun-sellers-perform-background/story?id=15154436#.UHQ4vRg5jJw). Considering 40% of gun sales happen in the private market, that's a significant number of undocumented weapons changing hands, especially thanks to online sites, which can be regulated if the federal government stepped in with further regulations and penalties for illegally reselling weapons.

Well, let's consider this for a moment. Say the number you just brought up are true. Them why isn't murder by firearm more common? Why aren't people being gunned down in the streets daily?

You seem to think just because somebody buys a gun that means they'll go out and kill somebody, which isn't true since I own guns and I haven't even aimed them at a human, let alone shoot a person, and regulation would magically prevent that from happening. Well, let's look at a place in this country that has some of the most harsh gun regulations: California.

According to this (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls) table of murder by type of weapon in each state, California had 69% of their murders done by firearm.

Regulation isn't a magic, end-all, solution. Gun violence will happen, period.

Term
10-09-2012, 12:26 PM
And then you step into the problem of the federal government telling the states what to do, taking away states' rights

Not really my problem. The Federal government already tells states what to do on numerous issues. Adding dangerous weapons to the mix isn't exactly a stretch for me.


Well, let's consider this for a moment. Say the number you just brought up are true. Them why isn't murder by firearm more common? Why aren't people being gunned down in the streets daily?

They pretty much are being gunned down in the streets daily. As of October 4th, 1,329 people have been killed by firearms in New York City alone in 2012 (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-10-04/news/34243304_1_gun-lobby-gun-violence-gun-owners). That's a rate of over three-and-a-half people being killed per day, and the year's not even over yet. Just because every gun death doesn't make the 6 o'clock news doesn't mean it doesn't happen or happen at an alarming rate. It's very disturbing you don't recognize how common murder by firearm actually is, especially if you live in the US.


You seem to think just because somebody buys a gun that means they'll go out and kill somebody, which isn't true since I own guns and I haven't even aimed them at a human, let alone shoot a person, and regulation would magically prevent that from happening. Well, let's look at a place in this country that has some of the most harsh gun regulations: California.

According to this (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls) table of murder by type of weapon in each state, California had 69% of their murders done by firearm.

Regulation isn't a magic, end-all, solution. Gun violence will happen, period.

Yet you seem to be taking the stance of "because crime happens, we should do nothing about crime." That's a very destructive mentality and frankly irresponsible. I wonder how much you apply that logic to other crimes. "Because domestic violence is going to happen, we shouldn't really do anything about it." "Because women get raped, we shouldn't really bother with it."

I never said regulations will magically fix everything, but our government and law enforcement agencies should be more proactive in preventing even basic gun regulations are met, including and especially background checks. Considering how easy it is to sidestep regulations in places like Virginia, it's clear that either states like it have to, or the federal government has to step in and lay down the hammer in regards to compelling people to follow proper procedure in the selling of firearms through increased penalties or other means.

I'm not in the opinion that people can't have guns or that responsible individuals don't exist. However, considering how much rampant it appears that certain people seem to throw caution to the side and allow people who should by no means ever have access to weapons have them, it's very much something which needs to be looked into. And frankly, if you already own guns then none of this really applies to you, unless of course you're going to tell me you know an assault weapon, in which case I'd say you have no practical reason for owning a functioning assault weapon and I'd say you should get rid of it. I don't care if you're the most responsible adult on the planet, there's really no need for someone to own a combat-ready AK or AR-15.

RX-149Dragonite
10-09-2012, 01:25 PM
Not really my problem.

Then you should stop now.


The Federal government already tells states what to do on numerous issues. Adding dangerous weapons to the mix isn't exactly a stretch for me.

Yeah, you should really stop now.


They pretty much are being gunned down in the streets daily. As of October 4th, 1,329 people have been killed by firearms in New York City alone in 2012 (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-10-04/news/34243304_1_gun-lobby-gun-violence-gun-owners).

You forgot to add that New York also has some of the strictest gun control policies in the US, besides Cali, and yet this stuff still happens.


That's a rate of over three-and-a-half people being killed per day, and the year's not even over yet. Just because every gun death doesn't make the 6 o'clock news doesn't mean it doesn't happen or happen at an alarming rate. It's very disturbing you don't recognize how common murder by firearm actually is, especially if you live in the US.

No, I fully realize it.


Yet you seem to be taking the stance of "because crime happens, we should do nothing about crime."

... No...


That's a very destructive mentality and frankly irresponsible. I wonder how much you apply that logic to other crimes. "Because domestic violence is going to happen, we shouldn't really do anything about it." "Because women get raped, we shouldn't really bother with it."

You're quite the assuming little badger, aren't you?


I never said regulations will magically fix everything, but our government and law enforcement agencies should be more proactive in preventing even basic gun regulations are met, including and especially background checks.

You realize background checks don't prevent anything either, right? Take the Aurora, Colorado shooting, for example. That guy passed background checks and had no criminal history, and what happened still happened.


I'm not in the opinion that people can't have guns or that responsible individuals don't exist. However, considering how much rampant it appears that certain people seem to throw caution to the side and allow people who should by no means ever have access to weapons have them, it's very much something which needs to be looked into.

So how would you do that? Because background checks, making selling guns privately illegal, etc. would not stop that at all.


And frankly, if you already own guns then none of this really applies to you, unless of course you're going to tell me you know an assault weapon, in which case I'd say you have no practical reason for owning a functioning assault weapon and I'd say you should get rid of it. I don't care if you're the most responsible adult on the planet, there's really no need for someone to own a combat-ready AK or AR-15.

A. I don't own an assault weapon
B. You can own an AR-15 legally in most states, if it is not fully automatic

Regulation, federal or state level, will never make gun violence stop. People who want guns, for safe purposes and criminal purposes, will get them. What would really help prevent gun violence is letting people defend themselves with weapons if they are caught in a situation of life and death. Hell, I've heard of people who brandished guns with no ammo and were able to scare off criminals who had loaded weapons. As far as I see it, a modestly armed, gun-smart, and rational populace is what would prevent gun violence the most, not some arbitrary rules that wouldn't make anything different in the long run. Besides, if you outlaw guns obtained in a certain manner, only criminals will get guns that way, and not citizens with good intentions.

Term
10-09-2012, 07:01 PM
Then you should stop now.

Yeah, you should really stop now.

Why? You act as if the Federal government hasn't already stepped in to make legislation for the purpose of gun control. As if things like The Gun-Free School Zones Act or the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act don't exist as the federal government overstepping state's legislatures to set a baseline of requirements to be met for the possession of firearms. What I'm suggesting is in the same vein as the kinds of legislation that has been passed down before it.


You forgot to add that New York also has some of the strictest gun control policies in the US, besides Cali, and yet this stuff still happens.

And a lot of it is due to the same "MY RIGHTS" crowd that prevents law enforcement from doing its job. Nobody wants cops to enforce laws but of course when a little kid gets killed at a charity basketball event because some jackass brought a gun to it, got in an argument with someone, and started blasting away, suddenly everyone is shocked at how this could happen. It's one thing to have the laws on the books, it's another when interest groups make enforcement difficult for the people trying to protect us.


No, I fully realize it.

Could have fooled me when you said just two posts up:


Well, let's consider this for a moment. Say the number you just brought up are true. Them why isn't murder by firearm more common? Why aren't people being gunned down in the streets daily?

Which leads me to believe you don't believe gun related homicides happen daily, or even at a rate which puts MULTIPLE gun-related deaths everyday. If you realize that there are MULTIPLE gun related deaths everyday, even just in one city, why did you ask such an asinine question?


... No...

You're quite the assuming little badger, aren't you?

Were you not doing the same when you made the "gun control magically solving problems" comment?


You realize background checks don't prevent anything either, right? Take the Aurora, Colorado shooting, for example. That guy passed background checks and had no criminal history, and what happened still happened.

According to statistics provided by the Department of Justice, over 1.9 million handgun purchases were blocked thanks to the BHVPA since 1994. That's just on the federal level, without going into a state-run background check. Many of those individuals being felons and fugitives from justice. When actually implemented, background checks due prevent sales of firearms to unqualified individuals.

Criminal history of course isn't the only thing that should be looked at when considering background checks. I'd personally prefer an evaluation period for those looking to purchase a firearm to determine if they're mentally capable of owning a firearm, and not simply looking for records of psychological visits as was not available for the VT shooting. I'd want to know if that person is suffering from depression, anxiety, and so on, if they're on medication, etc. That may have prevented one innocent 13-year-old kid (http://madamenoire.com/184088/75-year-old-white-man-shoots-and-kills-unarmed-13-year-old-in-front-of-his-mother/) from being shot and killed by a 75-year-old man because he thought the kid had robbed him for some reason. Good ol' Second Amendment solutions.

In your state the rule is you have 5-years before you have to renew a concealed carry permit. Personally I'd want to see a federal mandate which makes it 2-years and you'd need that psychological evaluation done. Your state's already done away with having to retake a pistol training course for renewal. It's offensive to me that someone can go five-years without having to reapply for a gun permit, but you can't go two years without getting your CPR certification renewed. There's just something inherently wrong with that.


So how would you do that? Because background checks, making selling guns privately illegal, etc. would not stop that at all.

I believe it would curtail and at least offer up a chance for an individual to rethink why they are getting a gun or if they should possess one. Likewise I'd want the ATF to have more power to go after black market sites, particularly those based in the US, where private gun sales can take place. I don't believe that just because the solution isn't full-proof that we should instead allow the status quo to continue. Because clearly being complacent and not doing anything at all isn't helping either. I'd rather the government make the effort instead of letting a defeatist attitude towards gun control or any law stop them from attempting to curb gun violence in this country. It's a ridiculous attitude to take towards a real problem, hence why I made the allusions to other crimes where that sort of logic is equally absurd by comparison.


Regulation, federal or state level, will never make gun violence stop. People who want guns, for safe purposes and criminal purposes, will get them. What would really help prevent gun violence is letting people defend themselves with weapons if they are caught in a situation of life and death. Hell, I've heard of people who brandished guns with no ammo and were able to scare off criminals who had loaded weapons. As far as I see it, a modestly armed, gun-smart, and rational populace is what would prevent gun violence the most, not some arbitrary rules that wouldn't make anything different in the long run. Besides, if you outlaw guns obtained in a certain manner, only criminals will get guns that way, and not citizens with good intentions.

Again, so what if it never makes it stop completely? Just because we have traffic lights doesn't mean that people still don't run them. Does that mean that having traffic lights is a waste of tax-payer money?

And no, I don't see how arming every civilian is suddenly going to drop crime. I firmly believe that will make things WORSE rather than better or neutral. Imagine the Aurora shootings you keep bringing up with another dude in a dark theater taking shots at the assailant? Now we're having more bullets flying with a greater chance of someone getting hit. Further the dude in that case was wearing BODY ARMOR. Unless someone in that theater was a crack shot who could either make sure to nail his limbs or go for the head shot, likely several rounds would have been needed to take him down, adding to the bullets being used. The Gabby Giffords shooting is another example. Huge crowd, one dude with a handgun shoots the governor. Now suddenly five civilians pull out their weapons and start pointing them at one another. Who's the bad guy and who's just a civilian? One dude starts firing. Now an entire mass of people is likely injured or dead.

I don't believe for a second that the majority of individuals with concealed carry permits are running around with unloaded weapons. As seen with the Trayvon Martin case, if some dude is scared enough holding a weapon and thinks the other guy is holding a weapon, they're going to make a "it's him or me" call and kill somebody who may just be carrying a bag of Skittles. I'm sorry, but the amount of crimes you could claim were prevented by someone having a gun doesn't really make up for the innocent person who was shot because he happened to be black, wearing a hoodie, and held a Kit-Kat bar in his hand. One is too many, IMHO.